Money is cheap. Things are still slow. Unemployment high. Any insight? When do you see a turnaround? I think the cost of healthcare is killing us; it makes it very hard to employ people. My property insurance rates are crazy high right now, too - with no real justification. I'm usually a free market guy, but I'd be happy to move to a state mutual insurance pool like we have for wind and comp. And take the chiros out of comp and just admin the damn thing. I think we have to have a default for health and property. TX could use tort reform, and an end to class-action, too. On the flip side, I certainly wouldn't mind a luxury tax on executive salary. But that's just encouraging a reinvestment tack. I'm not sure I see why things should get better. Productivity gains, lower costs, greater sales...mmm...why?
Well first some experts on this BBS were saying: uncertainty if we were going to war before the war was delaying investment. Then they were saying: uncertainty over when the war was going to end was delaying the recovery. I'm sure they'll come up with some other excuse like - the war really isn't over, or not enough tax cuts, or wait for the tax cuts to trickle down, you peons.
I'm still waiting for the economic stimulus from Bush's first tax cuts to kick in. Boy, they sure did a lot for us didn't they? Good thiing we have more of the same coming to us, since they worked so well the first time.
Trickle down economics is when the rich people get all the nectar and then piss all over the rest of us.
It won't work. Unlike wind and comp, people make frequent claims on their health insurance policy. With this high level of claims, the resulting insurance would cover nobody well, would be expensive, and eventually the system would collapse. The question that comes to mind when somebody calls for tort reform is as follows: How would you craft rules that get the desired effect but do not prevent those with valid claims and legitimate injuries from redressing the wrongs? Class actions are defined in Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. They are simply a group of plaintiffs with the same claim based on the same operative facts. If you were to litigate every asbestos case separately, the courts would spend decades litigating all the cases. It simply is not an efficient use of judicial resources. Agreed.
My paycheck went up due to the tax cuts...thus we have more spending money...in fact it was just this LAST paycheck that went up...so the stimulus package has been in effect a whole 2 weeks give it some time. DD
And my paycheck didn't go up at all. Actually, the increase was MORE than offset by the increase in my health insurance since Texas cut the teacher health insurance program, so I got a wage REDUCTION. I know, this was not totally due to Bush, but it has everything to do with the crappy economy.
The initial tax cuts have been in effect. And everyone got that $300 check that same year. The economy however hasn't strengthened in the slightest since Bush's initial tax cut stimulus plan. Personally I am glad that you have a bigger check. Of course I would like bigger checks too, but I think the first priority would be to fix the economy. It's obvious that Bush's tax cuts have been unsuccessful in that area initially, and not round two is coming through. How smart is it to try the same sollution over and over when it didn't work the first time? If you were retaking a test and guessed 'B' the first time you took it, and it was marked wrong, would you guess 'B' again the next time around? Bush just did, and this time he even colored the bubble in a little darker.
My paycheck went up due to the tax cuts...thus we have more spending money...in fact it was just this LAST paycheck that went up...so the stimulus package has been in effect a whole 2 weeks give it some time. Yup. An average person making $60,000 a year (clear middle class and not living paycheck to paycheck) will get an extra $20 on their paycheck every two weeks. I'm sure that's going to make a HUGE dent in his or her spending habits.
You have no idea whether it improved the economy or not. Unless you somehow know what WOULD have happened WITHOUT the tax cuts, how could you know if things are better than had the tax cuts never happened? Things could be a lot better and you would have no idea, is all I'm saying.
That's wrong. I do know it hasn't improved the economy because the economy hasn't improved. Bush claimed that his stimulus tax cuts would improve it, and it hasn't happened. The only thing I can't tell is if the stimulus prevented the economy from getting even worse because you can't see exactly what would have happened without them. With them, however, it's evident what has happened. I understand what you are saying, in that, we wouldn't know what would have happened without the tax cuts. But we certainly do know what happened with tax cuts and that there was no overall improvement and that things like employment actually went down.
I'm not saying I believed Bush. Bush claimed his tax cuts would be a stimulus to improve the economy. I didn't think it would work, but I could've been proven wrong. And while nobody can predict the economy it's a foolish leader that doesn't try to do something when it's heading into the tanker.
And Bush tried to do something. It may not be working right now...but putting more money into circulation can't be detrimental. That's just not the way economics works. Ideally, people would take the money and invest it. This is not going to happen IMO. The hope now is that people will take the money and purchase goods and services.
Per ref's reply: Quote: TX could use tort reform The question that comes to mind when somebody calls for tort reform is as follows: How would you craft rules that get the desired effect but do not prevent those with valid claims and legitimate injuries from redressing the wrongs? Quote: and an end to class-action, too Class actions are defined in Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. They are simply a group of plaintiffs with the same claim based on the same operative facts. If you were to litigate every asbestos case separately, the courts would spend decades litigating all the cases. It simply is not an efficient use of judicial resources. It occurs to me that if redress were the goal, there would be no punitative damages, or awards for pain and suffering. Just actual damages, and only to the extent that money can cause a cure. Criminal courts are the place for punitative measures. That would clear out civil in a hurry. I do think class action is bad law. I do support individual asbestos cases. I sure wish they were limited to actual real damages. The shameful panic and abuse in the history of asbestos litigation is a reason to discredit rule of law. Walter Humphries is an evil troll, not a champion of the people. Juries need a chance to vote no as often as the vote yes on the same data.
Seriously, though, we were in recession before 9/11, and then a bunch of morons decided to fly a plane into the nerve center of our economy. Needless to say, that did not calm investors' nerves about future prospects. Whole industries crashed, and for a while there only duct tape manufacturers were bringing in profits. I think we're doing rather well considering the circumstances.
I have to take these one at a time. Pain and suffering: Your theory would work very well if human beings were merely economic entities, devoid of emotion. Sorry, but it simply is not the case. A woman who lost her husband due to the negligence of another has lost much more than a salary earner or a collective of distinct human parts. She has lost a life partner and a confidant. There is value to that. To not allow pain and suffering damages is to ignore the value inherent in that relationship. Punitive damages: It SOUNDS good to say that we will disallow punitive damages, but this is one of many instances where theory and practice do not match. Under a regime where actual economic damages are the only recoverable damages, the possibility of getting sued becomes merely a cost of doing business. The possibility of losing a large lawsuit becomes something stockholders will hold CEOs to task for. Remember this is the country in which Ford did not fix the defect in the Pinto because it was more expensive to fix the problem than it was to settle the lawsuits. Then I submit that you do not fully grasp the judicial resources it takes to litigate these cases, or the cost associated with it. I sure wish that these companies didn't put a dangerous product into the stream of commerce. I sure wish that those affected didn't have families. But then again, we have to live in the world that is. You take your plaintiff as you find him. The law of products liability in the states has been clear for decades. The juries decided that the law has been violated in the cases at bar. It has withstood appeal. Liability is clear. It isn't panic that resulted in juries finding liability. It was a preponderance of the evidence. So you are a proponent of inconsistent jury verdicts based on the same operative facts? Your dream world is a scary, scary place.
umm, yeah, i going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one, yeah . . . i'm not saying the stimulus has directly had anything to do with it, but the economy is definitely better off than it was at that time. we were in a recession at the time with 3 consecutive quarters of contraction, which we are no longer in. the economy hasn't come roaring back, but it is better off and growth is occurring. so if that is not improvement, then i don't know what the hell is. granted, employment hasn't risen yet, but historically employment rises lag a little behind economic recoveries because businesses have to get going first before they start re-hiring.
